lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] nvme-tcp: support specifying the congestion-control
On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:46:08 +0300
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> wrote:

> >> As I said, TCP can be tuned in various ways, congestion being just one
> >> of them. I'm sure you can find a workload where rmem/wmem will make
> >> a difference.
> >
> > agree.
> > but the difference for the knob of rmem/wmem is:
> > we could enlarge rmem/wmem for NVMe/TCP via sysctl,
> > and it would not bring downside to any other sockets whose
> > rmem/wmem are not explicitly specified.
>
> It can most certainly affect them, positively or negatively, depends
> on the use-case.

Agree.
Your saying is rigorous.

> >> In addition, based on my knowledge, application specific TCP level
> >> tuning (like congestion) is not really a common thing to do. So why in
> >> nvme-tcp?
> >>
> >> So to me at least, it is not clear why we should add it to the driver.
> >
> > As mentioned in the commit message, though we can specify the
> > congestion-control of NVMe_over_TCP via sysctl or writing
> > '/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control', but this also
> > changes the congestion-control of all the future TCP sockets on
> > the same host that have not been explicitly assigned the
> > congestion-control, thus bringing potential impaction on their
> > performance.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > A server in a data-center with the following 2 NICs:
> >
> > - NIC_fron-end, for interacting with clients through WAN
> > (high latency, ms-level)
> >
> > - NIC_back-end, for interacting with NVMe/TCP target through LAN
> > (low latency, ECN-enabled, ideal for dctcp)
> >
> > This server interacts with clients (handling requests) via the fron-end
> > network and accesses the NVMe/TCP storage via the back-end network.
> > This is a normal use case, right?
> >
> > For the client devices, we can’t determine their congestion-control.
> > But normally it’s cubic by default (per the CONFIG_DEFAULT_TCP_CONG).
> > So if we change the default congestion control on the server to dctcp
> > on behalf of the NVMe/TCP traffic of the LAN side, it could at the
> > same time change the congestion-control of the front-end sockets
> > to dctcp while the congestion-control of the client-side is cubic.
> > So this is an unexpected scenario.
> >
> > In addition, distributed storage products like the following also have
> > the above problem:
> >
> > - The product consists of a cluster of servers.
> >
> > - Each server serves clients via its front-end NIC
> > (WAN, high latency).
> >
> > - All servers interact with each other via NVMe/TCP via back-end NIC
> > (LAN, low latency, ECN-enabled, ideal for dctcp).
>
> Separate networks are still not application (nvme-tcp) specific and as
> mentioned, we have a way to control that. IMO, this still does not
> qualify as solid justification to add this to nvme-tcp.
>
> What do others think?

Well, per the fact that the approach (‘ip route …’) proposed
by Jakub could largely fit the per link requirement on
congestion-control, so the usefulness of this patchset is really
not so significant.

So here I terminate all the threads of this patchset.

At last, many thanks to all of you for reviewing this patchset.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-31 06:12    [W:0.065 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site